Mittwoch, 23. September 2015

An
anonymous group of Portuguese “business and legal workers” have
ploughed over €5,500 (£4000) into the online appeal, set up by a young
single mother to raise money for beleaguered ex-Maddie cop Gonçalo
Amaral. Amaral’s appeal against the €600,000 in damages awarded against
him in the civil case taken out by the parents of missing Madeleine is
due to be decided by Lisbon’s Appellate Court “any day now”.

The cash boost has brought the Legal Defence for Gonçalo Amaral to over €65,000 (£47,010).

Donated
in the Portuguese language, the text claims to be from “an anonymous
group of business and legal workers who are appalled by what has
happened”.

It continues: “Portugal and Britain are old allies,
but the McCanns and the British gutter press have tried to drive a wedge
between us.

“We can all see what they are trying to do, freezing
Dr Amaral’s assets to prevent him from defending himself, whilst using
the donated millions to sue him.

“That is not justice. It is not right.

“The
McCanns lost five out of the seven issues, but the British press has
not reported that, nor the strong terms used by the judge against their
so called ‘evidence’.

“They have to pay 60% of the costs, but the
British press has not reported that” either, the text continues,
stressing that “this small donation is to ensure that this act of hate
and venom does not succeed”.

The donation - arriving in the legal
fund early on Tuesday morning - has been widely shared on social media
where a veritable avalanche of support for Amaral has accompanied him
for the past eight years. But so far it has been ignored by the British
mainstream media.

As to the former PJ detective’s appeal against
the ruling that effectively orders him to pay the McCann’s over €600,000
in damages, that is advancing now through the Appellate Court in
Lisbon.

As a friend of the former detective’s explained, “it is not a public process. There is no court date.

“At
some point, the judges reach a verdict and then they communicate that
verdict to all parties. There is however no deadline. It may take weeks
or months until we hear anything”.

Sonntag, 24. Mai 2015

In
2009, the former "Maddie case" inspector was chosen by PSD to be the
candidate for the Municipality of Olhão. He was pushed from the race by
the McCann couple.

The story is over six years old, but it
remains fully alive in the memory of Gonçalo Amaral, the former "Maddie
case" coordinator. After he retired, PSD wanted to launch him into the
life of politics, indicating him "as candidate for the presidency of the
Municipality of Olhão", in late 2008. When everything already pointed
at him as the strongest candidate for victory, a contrary announcement
came from Manuela Ferreira Leite [then president of the party]. Gonçalo
Amaral was received by the then PSD leader who apologised to him about
the decision.

"The McCannns allege that they devalued the book
and only the showing of the documentary prompted them to react. It's not
true. The book came out and was devalued by the couple, but before the
documentary, in January of 2009, the newspapers published that I had
been chosen by PSD to run for the presidency of the Olhão Municipality",
the former inspector says, stressing: "What happened was that the
couple always tried to destroy me, to destroy my credibility, and they
were scared of the possibility of me stopping being an outsider, a
police retiree, and becoming the president of the Municipality of Olhão.
They were scared, they thought that a mayor would be a more credible
figure than that of a police officer", says Amaral, describing his
version of the events at that time. "The couple's reaction was swift. In
a flash trip, Gerald McCann came to Lisbon, met with his lawyer, Dr
Rogério Alves, with a PSD leader, who is said to be Dr José Luís Arnaut,
and the couple’s current lawyer, Dr Isabel Duarte. They talked about
me, a Portuguese citizen with the right to vote or to be elected in any
democratic election, and they even delivered a report about me, done by
their private detectives that had been hired to look for their daughter.
After the meeting, Dr Manuela Ferreira Leite announced that I would not
be a candidate, overriding the will of the Olhão militants and the will
of the Algarve's people."

After this removal, Gonçalo Amaral
asked to be received by Ferreira Leite. “She received me at the party's
headquarters, and only apologised, to me and to my family”, he revealed
in an interview to Nova Gente, once more defending that “the couple
didn’t suffer any damages, they were merely scared about the course my
life was taking, because they wanted to discredit me”.

Samstag, 24. Januar 2015

Anchor
– Today, our guest is Gonçalo Amaral who was on the news again
yesterday because of the lawsuit that the McCann couple filed against
him. Good morning, Gonçalo.

Gonçalo Amaral – Good morning.

Anchor
– I read in your book that you wrote this book to defend your honour.
The first question that I have for you is: Were you in any way attacked
by the McCanns before the publication of the book, or even during the
investigation? Were you with them, did you question them?

Gonçalo
Amaral – That is a very good question. There was indeed a series of
attacks, not just directed at me but at the investigation. Those attacks
came not only from the parents’ side, but also from their support staff
and from journalists, English and even Portuguese. That honour was not
only personal but also professional. The investigation was at stake, an
investigation that was never defended here in Portugal, namely by
someone at the top of the Polícia Judiciária – and it’s me who defends
those initial months of the investigation, and that is what the book was
published for. That is one of the issues that are raised by the Lisbon
Appeals Court, at the time of the injunction, which supports me, and
establishes that it was licit for me to write the book.

Anchor –
If you don’t mind, let’s return to the start of this story, the McCann
case was the most media exposed ever, as far as the alleged abduction of
a child, Madeleine McCann, is concerned. This book, “Maddie, A Verdade
da Mentira”, that was written by you, why was it so controversial? What
does it contain?

Gonçalo Amaral – What it contains is the
conclusions of the process, of a report that exists, in September of
2007, which says that at that moment of the investigation, suspicion
falls upon the [McCann] couple in terms of an accidental death inside
the apartment, neglect in watching over their children that had been
abandoned, and the concealment of a corpse. That is in the process and
with this decision, which is not a final decision, it is merely a reply
to the facts that were at stake during the trial, it agrees that this
was in the process.

Anchor – The process is not concluded yet, it is still ongoing –

Gonçalo Amaral – It is still in the lower court, now there will be legal arguments, then there will be a verdict –

Anchor – We are at the stage of replies to the proved facts, is that it?

Gonçalo Amaral – Proved and not proved.

Anchor – Did you question them? Did you meet them?

Gonçalo
Amaral – I met them but the questioning was performed by others, by
inspectors. A coordinator does not question directly, that was done by
the inspectors. But I met them.

Anchor – You accompanied this process from the beginning…

Gonçalo
Amaral – I accompanied the process, the investigation from the 3rd of
May of 2007 until I left the investigation on the 2nd of October of
2007. I accompanied it, participating in the investigation.

Anchor – And what happened yesterday? What was the accusation –

Gonçalo
Amaral – There was no accusation yesterday. Not yesterday, the day
before yesterday. What was done is – there is a decision from the
magistrate, the judge, saying what is proved and what is not proved.
That decision says that it is not proved that I caused the couple any
damages, social or psychological or moral damages. So what was being
questioned, it’s not the book that causes such damages; they were
already destroyed before the book. That is important. It’s important
because in this kind of process, what is at stake, contrary to what the
couple said, that what was at stake was the investigation, whether they
are guilty or not, none of that was being discussed there. What was at
stake there was whether or not that book and that documentary could be
made, if they were licit or not, if they caused the couple any damages,
and whether or not it was possible to establish a causal nexus between
the book and the damages. And the indications that are given lead me,
and my lawyer, and people who have already read the document, to believe
that there may be – there may be – a favourable verdict.

Anchor – There is a contradiction between the news that came out –

Gonçalo Amaral – There is no contradiction. There is complete manipulation of the media.

Anchor – Can you clarify that?

Gonçalo
Amaral - Lusa agency, since all of this began, has been taking sides – I
wouldn’t say as much as they have taken the side of the couple, but
they have taken the side of the couple’s lawyer. So there have been
completely false news about me. I remember an article that was published
in 2009 or 2010, which mentioned I was going to be tried over torture
in a certain case, that I had been accused of torture. I was in Spain at
that time and I called, it was already 7 or 8 p.m. and I said “Excuse
me, but this is not true. I am being accused of omitting a denunciation
and making a false statement, not of torture”. And the reply that I got
from the Lusa journalist was that it’s them that make the news, that it
was not for me to meddle with their work and that is how it’s been –

Anchor – Even though they were talking about your life.

Gonçalo
Amaral – That’s another thing that happened throughout all of these
years, not only the five years of this process, but since 2007 they have
been rummaging… I don’t know what else there may be.

Anchor –
The fact is that concerning the McCann couple, the McCann couple was
never formally tried. They were never accused. So in your book we have a
contradiction with the law.

Gonçalo Amaral – What is the
contradiction? I don’t accuse them. I am nobody, I’m not a magistrate,
I’m not the case magistrate to write up an accusation –

Anchor – But you had knowledge, you were part of the investigation –

Gonçalo
Amaral – I was a technician, I’m a technician, and like anyone else, I
have the right to an opinion. And as a technician, based not only on my
professionalism, but also on my knowledge as a technician, I have the
right to have a technical opinion. And that book contains a technical
opinion, based on facts that are in the process and that the judge says
are in the process. Essentially, as is said, they are in the process.
Therefore, saying that they were not accused… The process was – when I
left there was already a movement to have the case archived. From the
moment that they are made arguidos, everything moves to shelve the case.
Interest was lost; the interest was to archive the case. And they
succeeded in shelving the case. It was in the couple’s interest to have
the case archived, and two things happen: The couple does nothing, and
they could have done something when there was a shelving, to continue
into the instruction [phase] to keep the process going, for the truth to
be found. You see, the conclusions that we reached were the conclusions
of an investigation. And an investigation, like someone said, is always
a zigzagging of the moment. And we might even have reached the end of
the investigation –

Anchor – In this case, this investigation was very traumatising, very disorganised…

Gonçalo Amaral – Disorganised, in what way?

Anchor - Because nothing was concluded, so many years later the child’s whereabouts haven’t been found.

Gonçalo
Amaral – Because of interferences that took place, without
interferences we would have gone further. Have no doubts about that.
That is why the process was archived. When the shelving took place, the
couple and another person were arguidos. Any one of them could have
requested the opening of the instruction and continued the process. None
of them did it, the couple because they didn’t want to, they didn’t
want to do it, and the other person because he received compensation
from the British courts, so he didn’t do it, he was very satisfied, and
now it seems that he is an arguido again. This is what happens –

Anchor
- We have to ask one last question. The truth is that the McCann
couple – and this is a question and not a statement – demanded
compensation worth 1.2 million euro from you because of the publication
of the book “A Verdade da Mentira”. This book was very controversial
because it was also a success. Many people read it –

Anchor – Many copies were sold.

Anchor
– Exactly. Many people read it and created their own opinion. Do you
think that in some way that opinion drew people away from the
possibility of believing in that child’s parents?

Gonçalo Amaral –
No, it didn’t, quite the opposite. The book, which was successful in a
way that nobody expected – the contract with the editor was even made
based on sales targets, 10 thousand books sold would mean a certain
percentage and so on – therefore a very normal contract, nobody was
thinking about bestsellers or anything like that. What the book brought
was more publicity for the case. And people were not drawn away. There
are many people who still defend the couple’s thesis. There are other
people – those diverging opinions already existed before the book. They
already existed practically before the book. What motivates the couple
to file the lawsuit of 1.2 million euro may be the money. They have a
firm, a firm where they are members of the board, called Madeleine Fund,
which is to look for their daughter, but they are members of the board,
it’s a firm, it’s not a social association, or social solidarity, it’s a
firm, it’s registered in England as a firm. And what they always wanted
was to destabilise me. When they went to Oprah’s programme in the
United States, they said it, they wrote on their website that they hope
that now nobody believes in that person anymore, for this and that –

Anchor – But Gonçalo, they had to defend themselves with the weapons at hand, if they think they are innocent…

Gonçalo
Amaral – Indeed they do. I will give you one example. We speak about
the book and we speak about the documentary. We forget another detail.
In 2009, in January of 2009, I lived in the Algarve and was indicated to
run for mayor of Olhão on behalf of the Social Democratic Party [PSD].
And that alerted that family, that situation of destabilising me, and Mr
Gerald McCann came to Lisbon, there’s news from that time, he met with a
top political official from PSD who has a French surname, with Dr
Rogério Alves and with Dr Isabel Duarte – this is what is said, it’s
what was published – and what happened then was that PSD gave me up as a
candidate. This puts rights at stake, the rights of a citizen, the
rights of a Portuguese citizen, and someone comes from the outside to do
it. It’s the right to be elected. And this is when they start thinking
about the lawsuit. It’s not about what is in the book, what is in the
documentary, because what the book and the documentary contain is what
is in the process. They contain technical opinions. And it’s the fear of
that issue – when they come over here and put the right to be elected
at stake, with the acquiescence of people inside PSD, that this
happened.

Anchor – Thank you very much, Gonçalo. Our time is
short but this is a subject that we would like to discuss in more depth.
We will continue to follow this because the process is still in its
early stages.

Gonçalo Amaral – There is no motive to get too excited, but it’s a good indication of what may be the decision.

Donnerstag, 22. Januar 2015

Thanks to Astro fromTheMaddieCaseFiles.com we can judge for ourselves the possible outcome of the McCann vs. Amaral Damages Trial and don't have to resort to media spin instigated by the parents' team of media manipulators. BTW not ONE journalist was present...

1. Gonçalo Amaral made the statements that are attributed to him under item Z)*?

*(item Z is the Correio da Manhã interview)

Proved.

2. The cover price of the book “Maddie, A Verdade da Mentira” in Portugal is € 13.80, including VAT?

It is proved that the editor set the selling price at 13,33 euro, including VAT.

3.
Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of the book “Maddie, A
Verdade da Mentira” an amount that is not less than € 621.000,00?

4.
Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of editions in
foreign languages of the book an amount that is not less than €
498.750,00?

(Items 3&4) It is proved that Gonçalo Amaral
earned 342.111,86 euro from the sales of the book in the years 2008 and
2009. This information is based on data from the Portuguese Revenue
Agency.

5. The book was sold in Brazil by defendant “Guerra e Paz, Editores, S.A.”?

Not proved.

6. The DVD has a cover price of € 6,00?

Proved that it was sold for 6,95 euro with newspaper Correio daManhã.

7. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has earned from the sale of the DVD an amount that is not less than € 112.500,00?

Proved that he earned 40.000 euro from DVD sales in 2008. Based on info from the Revenue Service.

8.
The DVD that is mentioned under AN) has been edited and the edited
copies have been sold by defendant “V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho –
Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.”?

Proved.

9. Defendant “V.C. –
Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.”? has already made the
DVD, in an English version, available for immediate delivery via
internet order?

Not proved.

10. At least two million and two hundred thousand people have watched the programme that was broadcast on 13.4.2009?

Proved.

11. Because of the statements made by
defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the
interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting
information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann?

Not proved.

12.
Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book,
in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors
Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann are completely destroyed, from a moral,
social, ethical, sentimental, family point of view, much beyond the pain
that their daughter’s absence causes them?

Not proved.

13.
Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book,
in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, authors
Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann suffer permanent anguish, insomnia, lack
of appetite, anxiety and irritability, preoccupation and indefinable
fear?

Proved.

The judge adds that this psychological state
is pre-existent to the book, the documentary and the interview and was
not caused by the book. Nonetheless, it cannot be reasonable to believe
that the book, the documentary and the interview had no effect on the
couple, i.e. It had an effect but that is perfectly normal.

14.
Authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann feel a deep shame and an
indescribable ill-being because they are considered, by most people who
know the theories of defendant Gonçalo Amaral, as having responsibility
in the death of their daughter, being so cowardly that they have hidden
her cadaver, simulating abduction, all of this to avoid criminal
accusations?

Proved that the couple felt badly about being
considered responsible over the hiding of their daughter's body and
simulating her abduction by those who believe in Mr Amaral's thesis.

The judge states that it is not possible to determine what most people who have read or seen Mr Amaral's thesis actually think.
She adds that the plaintiffs failed to prove shame, even with Kate stating it was not shame that she felt.
The
judge once more believes it is expectable that the plaintiffs would
feel badly about being considered to be responsible for hiding the body
and staging an abduction - not, the judge stresses, about being
responsible for their daughter's death, as is commonly, and mistakenly,
believed.

15. Authors Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann live under
enormous daily pressure due to the need to keep their younger children
away from the knowledge of defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s opinions about
their moral integrity?

Proved that the couple feels the need to keep their younger children from finding out about said thesis.

This fact also derives from common experience and was corroborated by David Trickey's testimony.

16.
Namely because of defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s statements in the book, in
the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, author Kate
MacCann is immerged in a deep and serious depression, which has already
made her state publicly “I wish I was in a coma, to relieve the pain”?

Not proved.

17. Sean and Amelie MacCann will soon become aware of the conclusions that are mentioned in J), because they will go to school?

It is proved that Sean and Amelie started school in August of 2010 and have not learned about Mr Amaral's thesis yet.

18. 63.369 copies of the DVD were not sold, having been destroyed afterwards?

Proved.

19. Defendant Gonçalo Amaral has gone into retirement from the Polícia Judiciária on 1.6.2008?

Proved that he retired on July 1st, 2008.

20.
On 22.6.2008, the Attorney General’s Office published a note for the
media, announcing the archiving of the inquiry, awaiting better
evidence?

It is proved that such a note was issued on the 21st of
July of 2008, the note also informed that the case could be reopened if
new evidence appeared and prompted relevant diligences.

21. The criminal inquiry was reopened due to the appearance of new evidence?

Not proved.

22. The attention of the media and of people in general diminished when defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s book was published?

Not proved.

23.
The sale of the books was made on consignment, being subject to
devolution for various reasons, like handling, manufacturing defects or
their non-transaction?

Proved that the book was partly sold on consignment, and partly firmly sold with a right to return for various motives.

24.
The so-called “Maddie Case” has been profoundly treated within the
Portuguese and foreign society, whether by the media, or through books,
like those authored by Paulo Pereira Cristóvão, Manuel Catarino and
Hernâni Carvalho?

Proved.

25. The so-called “Maddie Case”
was commented upon by Dr. Francisco Moita Flores, former inspector,
writer, criminalist and commentator, in various media?

30.
Has defendant “V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.”
ceded the rights to sell, distribute, exhibit and broadcast all of the
cinematographic and audiovisual work that it creates, develops and
produces to the firm “Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia, S.A.”?

Proved
that VC Filmes agreed to give VC Multimedia the rights to sell and
distribute several works that were to be produced within 5 years.

31. Until today, has the documentary been
reproduced only once to be edited, published and sold in Portugal under
video format, in this case a DVD?

Proved.

32. The
reproduction and edition of the documentary in video format have been
authorised by “Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia, S.A.” to firm
“Presslivre, Imprensa Livre, S.A.”, the owner of the Correio da Manhã
newspaper, according to a contract between both?

Proved.

33.
Under which [contract], the DVD, its covers and packages would be, as
they were, manufactured on behalf of, under order of and under the
responsibility of Presslivre, in order to be distributed and sold
together with newspaper Correio da Manhã?

Proved.

34. And
the entire process of registering and classifying the video edition
(DVD) of the documentary with ICAG would be, as it was, developed by
Valentim de Carvalho Multimédia, a process whose cost would be carried
by Presslivre, as it did?

Proved.

35. The distribution for
sale took place in conjunction with the distribution for sale of the
newspaper Correio da Manhã’s edition of April 24, 2009?

It is proved only that the documentary was distributed for sale with the newspaper.

36.
The documentary was reproduced, and even subtitled in the English
language, by third parties that published it on the internet, without
permission and against the will of the defendant “V.C. – Valentim de
Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.”?

Proved.

37. That
illicit diffusion damages not only the rights that are held by defendant
“V.C. – Valentim de Carvalho – Filmes, Audiovisuais, S.A.” over the
documentary, but also its commercial exploration, because any citizen
can watch the documentary, also only one “click” away?

Sonntag, 11. Januar 2015

The term of endearment implied him having a heart, a conscience and a sense of justice.

Today, on the streets of Paris, pretending to be there as a marcher for the cause instead of fulfilling his duty, he apparently got swept away by the atmosphere of for once belonging to a grand nation and dared to falsely quote Voltaire:

Now the full quote by Voltaire's biographer would have been: ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I guess he did not particularly want to mention death in any shape or form.

What is it that renders a quite successful journalist so utterly incapable of self-reflection? Why does he happily jump on the bandwagon to proclaim his defense for freedom of speech in the media while at the same time he has been part of the most outrageous campaign to shut down discussion on another subject on twitter?

While his rather shoddy reporting e.g. on the "full DNA match" in the McCann case has been one of the cornerstones of the scepticism that evolved over the years towards the tale of abduction, he nevertheless allowed himself to be used in the campaign to "hunt the trolls", to shut down dissent on social media by singling out and making an example of a 63 year old mother which ultimately led to her death.

Brenda Leyland was voicing an opinion, no matter if one liked the content or the language in which she did so. It was her right to do so since what she wrote was neither racist nor threatening. She simply refused to believe in the concept of "abduction" much the same as some we are mourning today might not have believed in the concept of "God". After all there is no evidence for either.

But while BRUNTY is shedding crocodile tears in Paris and resorting to the philosophers, the family of Brenda Leyland are still waiting for an apology for his doorstepping and hounding of their mother that led to her death.

So I can only draw the conclusion that he is not ultimately sincere in his demand for free speech but secretly adds: ...for proper media only... That media that is usually the origin of enciting hatred and dividing nations, or the wilful executors.

Sonntag, 4. Januar 2015

While the investigation is preparing for the final stages and the letters of rogatory are being sent, approved and scheduled for the next step aka the FORENSICS, let me come back to one of my favourite subjects, the timeline.

Going by the dictum that first accounts are the most important ones, I checked the timelines from the sticker book again. Given the state of the handwriting and the crossing out of some words we can assume that this is the sequence in which they were written:

First thing I noticed was the part in brackets that could be read as "tv" rather than "the". We did have some statements from the group where it was hinted that Gerry could have gone to watch some football that was on that night on television. For me it points towards an earlier plan where Gerry was away from the table for a longer period, let's say half an hour, and this was going to be the explanation for his absence. The question "? did he check" seems to confirm this. A physical check would not necessarily have been contemplated in an original plan that saw the abduction happening after 9:30. The jemmied shutters had always been the timestamp of the abduction.

Ella suggests that Russell was looking for a reason Jane was added to the original list of "checkers" of the children again indicating an original plan that had to be changed.

But the most important point is the entry "Matt check all 3". If Russell meant, when he wrote this first script, that Matt had been inside the apartment to physically check on the three children, he would have worded it differently since Madeleine had been gone at that time. No, in my opinion he again cited the original plan where Matt would have listened at all 3 windows again. He did not mean "children", he meant "windows" as in the first entry. It was a left-over of the original plan.

Russell now realised that checking the windows at that stage - as originally agreed upon - would not work since the abduction had already taken place - moved forward due to the Smith sighting - and got so confused and insecure that he left the crucial check by Matt out of the next, revised version.

Here the emphasis in on the Tanner sighting and the dots that cover Matt's visit in 5A are left out because he realised that a listening check would have been impossible. The now open window prevented it and he was not sure how to get it right.

If there had been an accident that had been discovered during dinner with an ensuing panic reaction to dispose of her body we would have been presented with one timeline that would have been pretty straightforward because it would have been concocted without any previous concepts in mind which alterations had to be communicated to all members involved.

All this supports my theory that there had been an original plan and timeline present which would have looked something like this:

Timeline 08:45 all assembled at Tapas

9:00 Matt checks at all 3 windows. Shutters down

9:15 Gerry checks at all 3 windows. Shutters down ... enters the apartment to watch some fooball results